This annotated
bibliography examines sources which give insight into the
history of archives and recordkeeping during the Middle Ages (which
lasted
between the 5th and 15th
centuries). Through the creation
of this bibliography, the eurocentricity of archival history became
evident.
Few sources examine the history of archives outside of Europe during
this time
period; therefore, this bibliography attempts to include archival
perspectives
outside of Europe, and aims to examine a number of different archival
repositories. The bibliography touches on ecclesiastical archives,
civic
archives, university archives and private archives. Within the sources,
themes
of power and the importance of social memory are investigated, and
organizational change within a variety of different archives is
examined.

Brown, W.
(2002). When documents are destroyed or lost: Lay people and archives
in the
early Middle Ages. Early Medieval Europe, 11(4), 337-366.

Brown’s
article argues that laypeople during
the early Middle Ages kept their important documents in private
archives. This
article refutes the idea that lay education atrophied during the early
Middle
Ages, and that laypeople did not read or write, meaning that laypeople
had no
need for the storage of private records. Brown states that lay people
in fact
used documents regularly to “do such things as secure,
alienate, or pass down
property, get married or get divorced, settle disputes, and otherwise
regulate
the business of their lives” (p. 339). While Brown agrees
with the argument
that churches and monasteries played an important role in the creation
and
preservation of records, he does argue that religious repositories were
not the
sole type of archives used during the early Middle Ages.

Brown’s
article, focusing on the use and
preservation of formula collections, which were model documents that,
made
generic, were used by private individuals as templates in the creation
of their
own documents, states that these collections of records were kept in
private
homes. Therefore, private individuals kept within their personal
archives
records that they understood as “vital to the security of
their property
holdings” (p. 351-352). Brown’s article is useful
in that it describes how and
why records were kept in private holdings during the early Middle Ages;
it is
particularly useful when read with Douglas’s 2009 article “Kepe
wysly youre wrytyngys,” as it provides evidence of private
archives prior to the late Middle Ages, giving a fuller picture of the
creation, use and preservation activities which occurred between the 5th
and 16th centuries.

Brown’s
article is also an interesting
break from Clanchy’s argument in his 1980
“Tenacious Letters” article, as Brown
makes clear that while the church and clergy played a large role in the
creation of archives in Europe, the church was not the first, nor the
only,
source of document creation and preservation. Additionally,
Brown’s article
supports Ketelaar’s argument (2010, “Records out
and archives in”) as Brown
examines the symbolic use of formula collections, focusing on the ways
in which
they acted as symbolic instances of social memory.

Clanchy,
M. T. (2013). The preservation
and use of documents. (Third ed.), From Memory to Written Record:
England
1066-1307. 147-79. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

Clanchy’s
chapter “The preservation and
use of documents”, from his book From
Memory to Written Record is a detailed account of the
creation and use of
archives in the High Middle Ages in England. Clanchy focuses on royal
and
ecclesiastical archives, arguing that while kings used documents for
the
business of running their governments, these documents were not usually
considered records (and therefore not considered valuable to preserve).
Clancy
notes that the main occurrences of document preservation transpired in
ecclesiastical archives, which saw records as “[assurances]
of the continuity of institutions
under God’s providence” (p. 185).

Clanchy’s
chapter on archives provides readers
with a detailed description of how royal and ecclesiastical archives
were
created, covering a section of information missing from his
“Tenacious Letters”
article. In particular, it gives readers an understanding of how these
archives
were organized, specifically in regards to how medieval users located
records
in these archives, a topic not covered in detail in any other source.
Clanchy’s
book, however, does not speak at all about personal archives, which is
a
strange aspect considering his book claims to deal with all facets of
medieval
literacy, documentation and preservation. Clanchy’s book,
while being an
excellent source on the details involved in Anglo-Saxon recordkeeping
during
the High Middle Ages, is best supplemented by other sources that can
account
for the use of personal archives (such as Douglas’s article).

Clanchy’s
article focuses on the
development of archives during the early Middle Ages. In particular,
Clanchy
examines the development of religious archives in Great Britain,
concentrating
on how the archives as a space was used and understood. Clanchy points
to the
early development of archives in Europe as a response to the
“religious
impulse” of the monks who created them, who saw archives as
spaces for the
preservation and worship of objects that evoked ideas of
“Christian endurance”
(p. 119-120). These objects, which ranged from letters, to manuscripts,
to
works of art, to religious relics, were all understood by medieval
archival
users as memory-retaining items.

Clanchy’s
article notes that written
records were assumed to be items of tenacity and, because of this,
these
records found a natural home in spaces of preservation, mainly
archives. While
his article is an excellent summary of the use and development of
religious
archives in early medieval Europe, he tends to gloss over the creation
of these
early archives, writing as though religious archival repositories
always
existed and were just waiting to be filled with these objects of
“Christian
endurance”. Although his article would be improved by a more
detailed account
of how these religious archives came to be – a gap which is
filled in his
chapter on “The Preservation and Use of Documents”
- Clanchy’s examination of
these spaces, particularly his examination of how these spaces were
understood
by those using them in a way “most different from modern
experience,”
illuminates early medieval religious archives (p. 125).

This article
examines the Paston family
letters, particularly those of Margaret Paston, who was “the
family’s most
prolific letter writer” (p. 29). The Paston family, a Norfolk
family active
during the fifteenth century, preserved their personal letters, which
give
insight into the War of the Roses, as well as more routine matters,
such as
business, household management, and relationships between family
members. This
case study is of interest to archivists because of “Margaret
Paston’s emphasis
on the necessity of creating written evidence and of keeping [this
evidence]
safe,” which can provide insights into personal
recordkeeping practices during
the late Middle Ages, particularly those of women and families (p. 30).

Of particular
significance to archivists
is the section headed “Kepe wysly youre wrytyngys,”
which delves into why
Margaret Paston may have preserved these letters. This article is
useful in
that it takes a case study and highlights the genesis, use and
preservation of
medieval documents, while taking into account how these documents were
understood by their author(s). It is the only close analysis of
personal
archives in this bibliography, and is of special interest because it is
also
the only analysis of the recordkeeping practices of a woman, which can
provide
great insight into the recordkeeping practices of late medieval
families. This
article is useful in that it can link broad themes discussed in more
general
resources, such as Clanchy’s book From
Memory to Written Record, to a particular case, providing a
real example of
record creation, the multiple uses and understandings of these
records, and
details on how family records were preserved.

Duchein,
M. (Winter 1992).The
history of European archives and the
development of the archival profession in Europe. American Archivist,
55,
14-25.

Duchein’s
article offers several sections
that relate to archives within the Middle Ages; these are
“The Origins of
Archival Practice in Europe” and “The Creation of
the First Great
Repositories.” These sections give readers an introduction to
the creation and
evolution of archives within Medieval Europe. Duchein’s
article begins by
outlining the use of medieval archives, and then gives an account of
the
development of both early modern and modern archives.

Duchein’s
outline is useful in that it
both provides readers with an understanding of the theories by which
pre-modern
archives were governed (the use of records in archives as legal
evidence, for
example), but also outlines the archival theories that developed after
the late
Middle Ages (the use of Archival Science, the principle of Provenance,
etc.).
Duchein’s outline clearly provides the full picture of the
development of
archives in Europe, neatly outlining the events that occurred during
the Middle
Ages. Duchein also highlights the fact that there is no single history
that
provides the full picture of all European archives; as Duchein notes
“each
European country has followed its own
path of archival development,” making each European
country’s archival history
unique (p. 14). This is a good reminder to readers, as many other
generalizing
sources do not speak to
the differences in European archival
developments, but rather only to the similarities. The
case studies examined in this bibliography
prove Duchein’s point; while general themes can be picked
out, the development
of archives depends on the region and the time period (a topic touched
on in
Head’s article), as well as the type of archive (a topic
touched on in
Douglas’s article).

Duranti’s
article demonstrates that all
European medieval universities present a similar pattern in regard to
their
archives. This pattern, taken from an examination of universities in
Italy,
France and England, notes that university archives preserved no
official
university records until the end of the Middle Ages. Dutanti notes
that before
this time, the university archives preserved only
“individual statutes, grants, privileges,
charters, and deeds, mostly copies, mixed up with seals, money, and
other goods
and valuables” (p. 40). The reason for this, Duranti notes,
is because
universities were not “invested with sovereign
power,” meaning that
universities did not have the power to “endow their records
with faith and
credit” (p. 42). Instead, other powerful bodies, who did have
the authority to
grant records with the property of evidence, were given university
records.
Therefore, university administrative records created before the late
Middle
Ages can often be found in city archives or church repositories.

Duranti’s
examination of university archives
in the Middle Ages gives readers insight into the particularities of
university
archives, and provides an explanation for the dispersal of important
university
records. Her examination of universities in the Middle Ages also
presents
readers with an understanding of
the ways in which archives were perceived
during that time. Similarly to Clanchy’s
article, Duranti’s piece would have been more informative had
it included a
brief explanation of the creation of these medieval university
archives;
however, her article helps to illuminate how medieval university
archives were
understood, and how the use of these spaces differed from modern use.

Head,
R. (2016).Configuring
European archives: Spaces,
materials and practices in the differentiation of repositories from the
late
Middle Ages to 1700. European History Quarterly, 46(3),
498–518.

This article
provides both a case study of
recordkeeping in medieval Germany and an overview of the changing ways
in which
archives were used during the late Middle Ages. Head examines archives
in
Germany after 1400, with a particular focus on the ways in which
recordkeeping
practices changed after 1500, and the result of that on the Hapsburg
administration. Head focuses on the use of established medieval
archives, and
the development of registries of informational records during the end
of the
Middle Ages. Head examines the differentiation of these two archival
spaces,
one space being historical (archives of historical documents) and one
being
administrative (state recordkeeping repositories).

Head’s
article is a useful examination of
the differing spaces of archives in the late Middle Ages, providing the
reader
with an investigation of the use of historical archives during this
period, as
well as an investigation of the development of administrative
repositories.
Head’s case study (German archives, and their development
from 1400-1500) is
also a useful reference point, as it provides readers with a case that
reflects
the development and use of archives in continental Europe. The article
is a
helpful resource to give readers an understanding of the events
occurring in
archives during the end of the Middle Ages, while also providing
perspective on
how archives continued to develop in early modern Europe.

Ketelaar,
E. (September 2010). Records out
and archives in: Early modern cities as creators of records and as
communities
of archives. Archival Science, 10(3), 201-210.

Ketelaar’s
article discusses the use of
recordkeeping in medieval cities, arguing that making a distinction
between
archives and records cannot be considered historically valid.Ketelaar states that the
records preserved in
European medieval cities are archives, and that medieval city archives
can
likewise be considered records. Ketelaar examines a number of cities in
Europe
(focusing on England, Ireland, Germany, and Italy), examining the
growth of
their city records during the 11th century. In
particular, Ketelaar
observed that during the 12th century notaries
and civic
institutions took over creating and archiving records for communities;
prior to
this period, most records had been created and preserved by religious
institutions.

Ketelaar’s
article can be best understood when
read in conjunction with Clanchy’s article, as it explains
why Clanchy’s
religious archives collected the very specific religious materials that
they
did; after the 11th century, city and community
records were, in
many places throughout Europe, being collected by civic archives.
Ketelaar’s
article is useful for exploring how civic archives differed in material
from
personal, religious, or university archives. Ketelaar’s focus
on how civic
records acted as symbols, often read aloud in public spaces in order to
affirm
citizens’ shared identity, further enhances the
reader’s understanding of the
complex ways in which records and archives were used during the Middle
Ages.
Ketelaar’s article is a reminder to readers that, while other
types of records
were often private, sealed or restricted in access, as we have seen
from our
case studies on religious (Clanchy), personal (Douglas) and university
records
(Duranti), civic records often publicly acted as
“centerpiece[s] of civic
ritual,” confirming medieval citizens “as members
of a textual community” (p.
207).

Lee,
K. R. (2010). The role of Buddhist
monks in the development of archives in the Korean Middle Ages. The
American
Archivist, 73, 61-81.

Lee’s
article compares the roles of
Buddhist monks in medieval Korea to the roles of Christian monks in
medieval
Europe, and their similarities and differences in their part in
creating and
using archives. Lee argues that, due to the political differences
between
medieval Korea and medieval Europe, Buddhist monks played a larger role
in the
development of Korean archives than the Christian monks did in the
development
of European archives. Lee notes that, because Buddhist monks in Korea
were a
part of a bureaucratic state system, “the
likes of which would not exist in Europe for centuries”,
these monks were
essential to the management of both secular and ecclesiastical archives
(p.
78).

Lee’s
article is an excellent resource which
aims to lessen the Eurocentric focus of archival history. While many of
the
sources on this list speak of archival history as distinctly European,
Lee’s
article reminds readers that archives have existed and flourished
outside of
Europe, and that archives and recordkeeping are a global phenomenon.
Lee’s
article does recognize the Eurocentric focus of archival history,
providing not
only an account of medieval Korean archives, but comparing these
archives to
those run by European Christians. Lee’s article is a useful
resource when read
alongside Clanchy’s article, as it allows readers to
highlight the differences
between the creation and management of religious archives during the
Middle
Ages.

McCrank,
L. J. (1993). Documenting
reconquest and reform: The growth of archives in the medieval crown of
Aragon.
The American Archivist, 56, 256-318.

McCrank’s
article on the growth of
archives in medieval Aragon provides a case study of the High Middle
Ages in
Spain, focusing on the development of archival management systems in
archives
and records centres. While many people equate the creation of
“modern” archives
with the formation of nation-states, McCrank argues, using medieval
Aragon as
an example, that the creation of “modern” archives
as we currently know them
can be traced back to medieval Europe. Medieval Europe (specifically
medieval
Argon) is where archivists can begin to see an
“institutionalization” and
increasing specialization of archives (p. 256).

McCrank’s
article is a close examination
of the creation, development and use of archives in Aragon. Because
McCrank’s
article delves into detail, readers are provided not only with a
general
history of medieval archives in Aragon, but also with an account of how
these
archives were managed, the physical location of the archival
repositories, and
what kinds of items were considered archival. As with other articles
with a
narrow focus, such as Clanchy’s and Lee’s articles,
McCrank’s case study is
useful in providing a reference point for understanding the more
general
histories offered by Head and Duchein. Furthermore, McCrank’s
article offers additional
proof of Ketelaar’s claim that, after the 11th
century, historians
saw “the
creation
of centralized, funded, and professionally maintained public
archives” (p.
298). McCrank also speaks to the creation and use of a number of new
archival
tools created by the archival system in Aragon, providing more context
for
Sherwood’s article, which references the same system as being
used by
inquisitors.

Posner’s
article examines the creation and
use of archives in medieval Islam. Posner, acknowledging that there is
a
“serious gap in the history of archives,” attempts
to fill in this gap through
an examination of archives in Islamic territories between the seventh
century and
the fall of Constantinople (p. 292). Posner focuses on secular state
archives,
examining how these archives were managed in medieval Islam.

Posner’s
article, much in the same way as
Lee’s, acknowledges the overwhelming Eurocentricity of
archival history, and
offers this perspective with the hope of lessening the Eurocentric
understanding of medieval archives. Posner’s article does not
delve far into
details regarding specific Islamic territories, but rather offers a
general
picture of the Islamic medieval world. This generalized picture,
however,
causes the article to veer close to Orientalism, often referring to
Islamic
territories as a vast homogeneity, when in reality these spaces spanned
three
continents and almost certainly contained a large variety of different
archival
knowledge and use. However, Posner’s article is nonetheless
an important piece
to understanding the global complexities of medieval archival history,
and does
offer the reader a rare example of a non-European focus in the history
of medieval
archives.

Sherwood, J.
(2012). The inquisitor as archivist, or surprise, fear, and ruthless
efficiency
in the archives. The American Archivist, 75, 56-80.

Sherwood’s
article examines the ways in which
archives were used by inquisitors during the High Middle Ages. Sherwood
focuses
on how inquisitors used new archival technologies to “uncover
hearsay, lies and
evasions” (p. 56). Sherwood, by looking at the archives of
inquisitors,
examines how their records became tools for the Medieval Inquisition;
in
particular, she examines how the improved searchability of inquisitor
archives
allowed inquisitors to more easily compile evidence and uncover old
crimes.

Sherwood’s
article is an interesting testament
to the effects that the improved archival tools referenced to by
McCrank had on
the medieval persons’ understanding of the power of records.
Significantly,
Sherwood notes the changes that occurred during the 11th
century,
where documents began to be understood as “written
records” rather than symbols
of social “memory” (p. 58), a theme also discussed
by Teuscher,
Ketelaar, and Brown. Sherwood’s article is an interesting
case
study of the development of a very particular kind of ecclesiastical
archive,
which provides the reader with a greater understanding of the
relationship
between records, the medieval church, and power.

Teuscher,
S. (September 2010). Document
collections, mobilized regulations, and the making of customary law at
the end
of the Middle Ages. Archival Science, 10(3), 211-229.

Teuscher’s
article describes the ways in
which medieval archives were organized, focusing on the late Middle
Ages in
Switzerland, and examining how the organization of archives changed.Teuscher argues that,
during the late Middle
Ages, records began to be understood in relation to their contexts (ie.
in
relation to other records), and there was a shift away from viewing
documents
only as symbols of past testimony. The shift in how records were
understood
fundamentally changed the ways in which archives were organized.
Teuscher’s
article gives an overview of the ways that archives were arranged
during the
early and High Middle Ages, comparing this organizational style to the
changes
encountered in the late Middle Ages.

Teuscher’s
article is significant in that it is the only resource on
this list that provides a detailed examination of how archives were
being
physically organized throughout the Middle Ages. Furthermore,
Teuscher’s
article also powerfully demonstrates changes in how medieval laypeople
understood archives, which is supported by Brown and
Ketelaar’s articles.
Teuscher not only discusses a shift in the ways in which records were
understood (from documents acting as symbols of local social memories
to documents
acting as part of a larger documentary context), but also how these
changes
affected the physical nature of the archives. Readers will find,
however, that
Teuscher neglects to specifically define the kinds of archives in which
these
changes occur. While readers can presume from his case studies that
Teuscher’s
focus is on ecclesiastical and civic archives, the author does not make
clear
what kinds of archives experience this change.

Caitlin Lindsay is a second-year student
completing her master's degree
(a Dual Master of Library and Information Studies and a Master of
Archival
Studies) at UBC. She is interested in the intersection between social
justice
in archives and libraries, accessibility of information, and
digitization.

Copyright
NoticeAll
authors in See
Also: retain full copyright of their material.
All content in See Also: is published under anAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 license